Front | Back |
Johnson v. M’Intosh
|
Prior possessor prevails over successive possessor. Reward labor, protect investments in resources, encourage bargaining instead of fighting.
|
Pierson v. Post
|
Law requires capture, rather than pursuit. Fosters competition and is an easier rule to administer
|
Ghen v. Rich
|
Court can look to custom and usage within an industry to determine the rule of law regarding the ownership of property
|
Keeble v. Hickeringill
|
Rationale Soli – conventional view that an owner of land has possession (constructive possession) of wild animals on the owner’s land. Landowners are prior possessors of any animals on their land, until the animals take off. Public policy favors protection of those who use their skill and industry to promote trade.
|
International News Service v. Associated Press
|
News is quasi-property. Property right is lost against public once news is published but not against business competitors. Create common law patent or copyright for reasons of justice.
|
Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Co
|
Imitation drives competition, and keeps monopolies from forming. Different view than INS.
|
Smith v. Chanel
|
Imitation is the life blood of competition. Not entitled to a monopoly even if you created the product.
|
White v. Samsung Electronics
|
Dissent stating majority is creating a dangerous precedent in controlling not only intellectual property but a right to control images that simply remind the public of a celebrity
|
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
|
Conversion only applies when one has actual ownership and possession. Moore didn’t expect to retain possession of his cells and, therefore, did not have ownership. Informed consent deemed sufficient protection in this case.
|
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc.
|
Right to Exclude is paramount.
|
State v. Shack
|
Property rights serve human values. Non-owners with a right of access to property based on need or on some other important public policy.
|
Local 1330, US Steel Workers of America v. US Steel Corp:
|
No right to community property, even if they are dependent on the corporation or industry for their livelihood.
|
Armory v. Delamirie
|
Finder’s interest is good as against all the world except the true owner
|
Hannah v. Peel:
|
Finder has a claim superior to that of the owner of the freehold upon which the property was found if the freehold owner was never physically in possession of the freehold.
|
Bridges v. Hawkesworth:
|
Parcel of bank notes found on floor in public shop. No circumstances warranting an exception to the rule that the finder has a superior claim over anyone but the true owner.
|